The Electrochemical Generation of Ozone: a Review
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Christensen PA, Yonar T, Zakaria K. The Electrochemical Generation of Ozone: A Review. Ozone: Science & Engineering 2013, 35(3), 149-167. Copyright: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Ozone: Science & Engineering on 23-04-2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/01919512.2013.761564 Date deposited: 08/02/2016 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk The Electrochemical Generation of Ozone: A Review Paul Andrew Christensen*a, Taner Yonar c and Khalid Zakaria c. a School of Chemical Engineering and Advanced Materials, Bedson Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU b Uludağ Universitesi,16059, Bursa, Turkey. c School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Bedson Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU ABSTRACT This paper reviews work on the electrochemical generation of ozone from the original studies by Schönbein in the early 1800’s to the present day, and is intended for specialists and non-specialists in the field of electrochemistry. The experimental techniques employed to study the mechanism of electrochemical ozone generation are described, as is the most commonly quoted mechanism and the experimental evidence for the mechanism is summarised and discussed. The types of electrochemical cells employed are described, and the effect of: temperature, anode type and composition, current density and electrolyte composition & pH are discussed. KEYWORDS Ozone, cell, history, zero-gap, membrane, electrodes, air-breathing, Schönbein, review. Introduction Ozone was first identified as a distinct chemical compound by Schönbein in work that commenced with his observation that the electrolysis of water produced an odour at the anode identical to that from an electric arc (Schönbein, 1838-1840). Schönbein’s acquisition of a Grove cell, which was able to deliver a much higher current than his previous apparatus, led to his proposal that the odour was due to a distinct chemical (Schönbein, 1840a), which he named “ozone” (Schönbein, 1840b). There is a nice circularity in the acquisition of the Grove cell by Schönbein in the mid-19th century being so critical to the discovery of ozone and the use of air cathodes in electrochemical ozone cells in the 21st century (see, for example, (Wang et al., 2006)). For an in-depth review of Schönbein’s work see (Rubin, 2001). 1 The molecular formula of ozone was determined by Andrews and Tait (Andrews and Tait, 1860), only after which could the compound be determined quantitatively. The electrolysis of water is generally believed to produce ozone via a 6-electron process (Da Silva et al., 2003a; Da Silva et al., 2006): + - 3H2O → O3 + 6H + 6e E = +1.51 V (1) As E for the oxidation of water to oxygen is somewhat lower, +1.23 V (Bard et al., 1985): + - 2H2O → O2 + 4H + 4e E = +1.23 V (2) oxygen is always produced simultaneously with ozone ((Da Silva et al., 2006) and references therein), and the current efficiency for ozone generation is the percentage of the observed current that is generating ozone. Ozone is not always observed as soon as Faradaic current (ie. electrons cross the electrode/electrolyte interface) flows: at PbO2 anodes (the most commonly employed electrodes for ozone generation), Kötz and Stucki (Kotz and Stucki, 1987), report that ozone was only observed at current densities > 50 mA cm-2 whilst and co-workers did observe ozone as soon as Faradaic current flows (Feng et al., 1994). At Si/TiOx/Pt/TaOx anodes, Kaneda et al., (Kaneda et al., 2006) observe an onset of ozone evolution at current densities > 30 mA cm-2. The solubility of ozone in acidic solutions is generally accepted as being up to ca. 10 times that of O2 (De Smedt et al., 2001; Levanov et al., 2008; Seidel, 2006) i.e. the saturation solubility at 0 C and 1 atm is 22 mM. Ozone is commonly measured in the gas phase and solution by UV spectroscopy and iodometric titration (Gordon et al., 1988). The UV approach employs the ozone peak near 254 nm (gas phase) or 258 nm (solution phase) (Stucki et al., 1985). The majority of papers in the literature quote a value of 3000 125 mol-1 dm3 cm-1 for both the gas and aqueous phase extinction coefficients (see, for example, (Hoigne and Bader, 1976; Kilpatrick et al., 1956; Nemes et al., 2000)) with a typical gas phase value 2 of 3024 mol-1 dm3 cm-1 at 254 nm and aqueous phase value of 2900 mol-1 dm3 cm-1 at 258 nm (Stucki et al., 1985). The International Ozone Association (Nemes et al., 2000), recommends a value of 3000 mol-1 dm3 cm-1. It is worth mentioning that some concerns have been expressed with respect to the adverse effect of water vapour on the UV analysis of low concentrations of gas phase ozone (Meyer et al., 1991). Iodometric titration is the standard method recommended by the International Ozone Association - (Rakness et al., 1996). Briefly, the iodometric method relies on the oxidation of I by O3 followed by the determination of the amount of iodine so formed by titration with sodium thiosulfate using starch indicator. 1. The mechanism of electrochemical ozone generation With any chemical or electrochemical reaction, a good place to start is to identify the intermediates. Wabner and Grambow, employed various methods to detect hydroxyl radicals, singlet oxygen and . peroxo species (H2O2 and HOO ) during the electrolysis of pH 7 phosphate buffer at Pt and PbO2 anodes (Wabner and Grambow, 1985). The spin trap p-nitrosodimethyl aniline (NDMA) was employed to detect OH radicals, via the bleaching of the NDMA absorption at max = 440 nm; singlet oxygen was monitored via its reaction with histidine and the bleaching of the 440 nm absorption of NDMA by the endoperoxides so formed. Peroxo species were detected via their conversion to OH 2+ radicals by Fe and reaction with NDMA. Pt was used for comparison with PbO2 as the former did -2 not produce ozone at the low current densities employed (5 mA cm ). As well as O2, Pt and PbO2 both produced singlet oxygen; however, Pt produced peroxo species and only traces of OH radicals, whilst OH radicals were clearly produced at the PbO2. On the basis of their results, the authors concluded that OH radicals were intermediates in the production of ozone: + - H2O → OHads + H + e (3) OHads + O2ads → HO3ads (4) + - HO3ads → HO3 + e (5) + + HO3 → O3 + H (6) 3 Kim and Korshin also detected OH radicals during the electrolysis of aqueous Na2SO4 at PbO2 and postulated that these species were intermediates in electrochemical O3 generation (Kim and Korshin, 2008), and this remains a common postulate (Da Silva et al., 2001, 2003a; Da Silva et al., 2006; Feng et al., 1994; Franco et al., 2006; Franco et al., 2008; Santana et al., 2005), with the first step (3), the primary water discharge, being the rate determining step (rds). The gas phase reaction: . (O ) (g) + O2 O3 (7) is well known to proceed with low activation energy (Eliasson and Kogelschatz, 1986), and the role of atomic oxygen as a key intermediate to O3 has hence also long been postulated in electrochemistry (see, for example, (Foller and Tobias, 1982)). Initially, dissolved O2 was believed to be the other reactant (Beaufils et al., 1999; Stucki et al., 1985). Stucki and co-workers employed a pressured membrel electrolyzer (Stucki et al., 1987), to investigate the possible role of dissolved O2, but found that pressure had no effect upon current efficiency, an observation they rationalised in terms of the reactions: k1 (O)ads + O2(g) → O3(g) (8) k2 (O)ads + O3(g) → O2(g) (9) Increasing the pressure increases O3 and O2 but decreases (O)ads, hence the ratio of the two reaction rates (8) and (9) remains unchanged. Reactions (8) and (9) show another commonly held view, that . (O )ads is common to both O2 and O3 formation, and it is now generally accepted that adsorbed O2 is the . active intermediate, along with (OH )ads and (O )ads (Babak et al., 1994; Beaufils et al., 1999; Feng et al., 1994), and that the discharge of water is the rate determining step. Mechanistic studies on electrochemical ozone evolution have primarily focused on the interpretation of overpotential vs log(current density), or Tafel, plots (see Appendix for a critical description of the Tafel 4 approach; current density in A cm-2). Broadly speaking, in terms of the first two postulated steps in electrochemical ozone evolution: . + – (H2O)ads → (OH )ads + H + e (rate determining step) (10) . + – (OH )ads → (O )ads + H + e (11) if all the species in (10) and (11) were in solution, ie. (10) and (11) are outer sphere processes, we would expect the slope of the Tafel plot to be 118 mV, if (10) was rate limiting, or 39 mV if (11) was the rds (Hamann et al., 2007; Oldham and Myland, 1994). In the latter case, at high enough overpotentials, there should be a switch of the rds to (10) with a concomitant increase in the slope to 118 mV. If any adsorbed species are involved (as is the case with (10) and (11)), the analysis becomes significantly more complicated and a range of Tafel slopes are possible. The above analysis requires that the mass transport of reactants to the electrode and of products away from the electrode is controlled; in most papers reporting Tafel analyses, this is not the case. The work of Kötz and Stucki may be considered as seminal in the Tafel-based analysis of the ozone evolution reaction for several reasons (Kotz and Stucki, 1987).